Hedge fund manager Doug Kass tweeted (via 9to5Mac) a short time ago that he is hearing rumors of an announcement regarding a stock split coming at Apple's shareholder meeting scheduled for tomorrow at the company's headquarters in Cupertino, California. The stock has reversed course since Kass's Tweet, moving from down $5 to up $5.

Many observers, such as Fortune's Philip Elmer-Dewitt, are calling into question Kass's statements, noting the sequence of events that saw him announce a large position in Apple, float the rumor of a stock split, and then announce that he was selling off shares after the stock spiked. Kass has, however, defended his Tweet, saying that the rumors were "all over the Street".

While a stock split would not add any intrinsic value to Apple's market value, some have viewed a potential split as a positive for Apple under the perception that a company is more likely to split when it is confident that the stock price will rise in the future. Observers have also argued that high stock prices for companies like Apple and Google have kept them from being added to the Dow Jones Industrial Average given the outsized impact they would have on the price-weighted index.

Apple's last stock split came in February 2005, a 2-for-1 move that brought the price of a single share down to just under $45. Apple has refrained from splitting its stock since that time, with investors seeing the share price rise to over $700 before pulling back to the current level around $450.

I have found that this is a good explanation about a stock split. It's quite interesting.

It is a useful explanation, but it does seem like stock manipulation nevertheless.

I am disturbed over what the stock market has seemed to become over the last 20 or so years. Admittedly, my knowledge is rudimentary, only having researched enough over the years to be "investment club"-level savvy. It seems like the overall increase of the market is less about the strength, fundamentals and future of corporations, but merely how they can puff up their numbers for short-term gain. It appears to operate more like a casino and less like an exchange that exists to support American corporate financial strength.

It is a useful explanation, but it does seem like stock manipulation nevertheless.

I am disturbed over what the stock market has seemed to become over the last 20 or so years. Admittedly, my knowledge is rudimentary, only having researched enough over the years to be "investment club"-level savvy. It seems like the overall increase of the market is less about the strength, fundamentals and future of corporations, but merely how they can puff up their numbers for short-term gain. It appears to operate more like a casino and less like an exchange that exists to support American corporate financial strength.

I was disturbed by this more than 20 years ago. It's not a new phenomenon. The market mirrors humanity - we tend to have a short attention span. We prefer quick rewards to deferred gratification. Since shareholders have a vote, companies that sell shares to the public are unlikely to operate in a manner contrary to human nature. Perhaps humans have become even more short-sighted and greedy than we used to be, but I doubt it. Aesop's fables (Grasshopper and Ant, Tortoise and Hare) have been around for quite a while.

As far as I'm concerned, the market is peripheral to corporate financial strength. The market exists to promote liquidity when selling and buying shares in companies. When a company needs to raise capital, that liquidity is a good thing. It's easier to offer shares to the public than to track down potential investors.

When a company is not selling shares (which is most of the time), the market's relationship to the company's prospects becomes less distinct. At that point, it becomes a vehicle for investor-to-investor transactions, and a barometer of investor sentiment about the company. Market sentiment can either entrench CEOs and boards of directors or drive them from office, it can affect banks' willingness to lend money to the company or call a loan. It can affect corporate morale and enrich or impoverish employees who received stock as compensation. It can make a company a target for takeover, or make that company capable of using its share value to take over another.

But for day-to-day operations? A company survives or falls on what it produces and how well it sells those products, how well it employs its capital, etc. Apple seems to have done that very well.

We certainly have a clash of long-term vs. short-term viewpoints at the moment. Giving a wad of cash to Apple shareholders is definitely short-term thinking - it damages the company's actual financial position (capital available for investment), but it has the potential for increasing short-term share price.

Everything a company does manipulates the price of a stock. The question is, are the changes predatory or are they beneficial.

When a company announces a new product, it could be considered manipulation of stock price. It is also quite legal. When a company hires or fires members of the board of directors, it is quite often with the intent of improving stock prices.

When a company splits it's stock, it is usually because, their price is so high, many who wish to invest, can't. By splitting, they are lowering an artificial barrier to entry. This is generally a good thing.

Everything a company does manipulates the price of a stock. The question is, are the changes predatory or are they beneficial.

When a company announces a new product, it could be considered manipulation of stock price. It is also quite legal. When a company hires or fires members of the board of directors, it is quite often with the intent of improving stock prices.

When a company splits it's stock, it is usually because, their price is so high, many who wish to invest, can't. By splitting, they are lowering an artificial barrier to entry. This is generally a good thing.

This wasn't Apple's announcement, it was a statement from a speculative analyst. Now if Apple explicitly leaked this to him, that is one thing...but it appears that in being a person of influence on Wall Street and doing something like this, and profiting from it, that he may have done something that is actionable.

Even if the "bump" is $7 a share, if you own 2,000 shares, you're talking about real money. Hell, even if you only owned 500 shares.

Did I catch a falling knife today? I bought some shares in the morning at $439. Boy was I surprised when I checked back later and saw the increase.

But I also added to my position earlier this year at $466, so you win some you lose some.

These are buy and holds, not day trading stuff. But still it was fun that I stumbled into the interday low. And just yesterday, I was thinking to myself that it was time to get in for a few more shares and I was worried about a pop this morning (yes, I know I say I don't day trade, but still with a shareholder conference coming up there is more chances for a dramatic move than during normal times). Turns out there was a pop, it just was in the afternoon. Convenient to me!

$200-$300 is more reachable for those wanting to invest and don't have a lot of money.

The last I heard Apple was a publicly traded company.

To your first sentence, I thought that is what investment clubs and mutual funds are for, to help those without the capital to do it themselves have an opportunity to invest in higher-priced stocks that have growth potential.

To your first sentence, I thought that is what investment clubs and mutual funds are for, to help those without the capital to do it themselves have an opportunity to invest in higher-priced stocks that have growth potential.

That's probably true for most people but I like to control where my money goes without using a middleman.

To your first sentence, I thought that is what investment clubs and mutual funds are for, to help those without the capital to do it themselves have an opportunity to invest in higher-priced stocks that have growth potential.

You will never get the same return with a mutual fund that might hold a few shares of a stock compared to completely owning shares

----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ralf The Dog

Everything a company does manipulates the price of a stock. The question is, are the changes predatory or are they beneficial.

When a company announces a new product, it could be considered manipulation of stock price. It is also quite legal. When a company hires or fires members of the board of directors, it is quite often with the intent of improving stock prices.

When a company splits it's stock, it is usually because, their price is so high, many who wish to invest, can't. By splitting, they are lowering an artificial barrier to entry. This is generally a good thing.

But Apples hasn't said anything about this. Right now it is just some guy telling everyone what he thinks. That's the whole point!

How does an Apple share even look like?
Is it just a sheet of paper with the 'worth' and 'Apple Inc.' on it?
Can I put one in a frame like the 1 Million dollar note^^
Or is it virtual stuff, cloud 'n' this stuff.